No small thing: School district central office bureaucracies and the implementation of new small autonomous schools initiatives

American Educational Research Journal

Volumn 46, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 387-422

  Honig, Meredith I ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

District central offices; Implementation; New small autonomous schools; Organizational learning theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 67949086374     PISSN: 00028312     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0002831208329904     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Agullard, K., & Goughnour, D. (2006). Central office inquiry. San Francisco: WestEd.
2. American Institutes for Research & SRI International. (2003). High time for high school reform: Early findings from the evaluation of the National School District and Network Grants Program. Washington, DC: Authors.
3. American Institutes for Research & SRI International. (2004). National School District and Network Grants Program, Year 2 evaluation report. Washington, DC: Authors.
4. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
5. Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (Vol. 1, p. 3-22). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
6. Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 78-108.
7. Barzelay, M. (1992). Breaking through bureaucracy. Berkeley: University of California Press.
8. Bickel, R., & Howley, C. (2000). The influence of scale on school performance: A multi-level extension of the Matthew principle. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(22), 1-27.
9. Blau, P. M. (1963). The dynamics of bureaucracy. New York: John Wiley.
10. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57.
11. Center for Collaborative Education. (2001). How Boston Pilot Schools use freedom over budget, staffing, and scheduling to meet student needs. Boston: Author.
12. Center for Collaborative Education. (2007). Strong results, high demand: A four-year study of Boston's Pilot High Schools. Boston: Author.
13. Corcoran, T., Fuhrman, S. H., & Belcher, C. L. (2001). The district role in instructional improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 78-84.
14. Cznariawska, B. (1997). Narrating the organization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555-590.
16. Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Policy and change: Getting beyond bureaucracy. In D. Hopkins (Ed.), International handbook of educational change (pp. 642-667). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
17. Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Ort, S. W. (2002). Reinventing high school: Outcomes of the Coalition Campus Schools Project. American Educational Research Journal, 39(3), 639-673.
18. Delaney, J. T., Jarley, P., & Fiorito, J. (1996). Planning for change: Determinants of innovation in U.S. national unions. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 49(4), 597-614.
19. Downs, A. (1967). Inside bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown.
20. Dunphy, S. M., Herbig, P. R., & Howes, M. E. (1996). The innovation funnel. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 53(3), 279-292.
21. Elmore, R. F., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1988). Steady work. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
22. Gladstein, D., & Caldwell, D. (1985). Boundary management in new product teams. Academy of Management Proceedings, pp. 161-165.
23. Holland, N. E. (2002). Small schools transforming teacher and student experiences in urban high schools. In V. E. Lee (Ed.), Reforming Chicago's high schools: Research perspectives on school and systems level change (pp. 89-124). Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
24. Honig, M. I. (2003). Building policy from practice: District central office administrators' roles and capacity for implementing collaborative education policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 292-338.
25. Honig, M. I. (2006). Street-level bureaucracy revisited: Frontline district central office administrators as boundary spanners in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(4), 357-383.
26. Honig, M. I. (2009). Urban school district central offices and the start-up of new small autonomous schools. Unpublished manuscrip
27. Honig, M. I. (in press). "External organizations and the politics of urban educational leadership: The case of new small autonomous schools initiatives. Peabody Journal of Education.
28. Honig, M. I., & Rainey, L. (2009, April). Learning from experience: Assessing current school autonomy initiatives using lessons from site-based management research. Paper to be presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
29. Howley, C., & Howley, A. (2004). School size and the influence of socioeconomic status on student achievement: Confronting the threat of size bias in national data sets. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(52). Available at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n52/
30. Hubbard, L., Stein, M. K., & Meehan, H. (2006). Reform as learning: When school reform collides with school culture and community politics. New York: Routledge.
31. Johnson, S. M., & Landman, J. (2000). Sometimes bureaucracy has its charms: The working conditions of teachers in deregulated schools. Teachers College Record, 102(1), 85-124.
32. Kahne, J., Sporte, S., de la Torre, M., & Easton, J. Q. (2006). Small high schools on a larger scale: The first three years of the Chicago High School Redesign Initiative. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
33. Kanter, R. M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for innovation in organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 169-211.
34. Kimberly, J. R. (1981). Managerial innovation. In P. C. Nystron & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design, Vol. 1: Adapting organizations to their environments (pp. 84-100). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
35. Lee, V. E., & Loeb, S. (2000). School size in Chicago elementary schools: Effects on teachers' attitudes and students' achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 3-31.
36. Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1997). High school size: Which works best and for whom? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 205-227.
37. Leithwood, K., Leonard, L., & Sharratt, L. (1998). Conditions fostering organizational learning in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(2), 243-276.
38. Malen, B. (2006). Revisiting policy implementation as a political phenomenon: The case of reconstitution policies. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 83-104). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
39. Malen, B., Ogawa, R., & Kranz, J. (1990). What do we know about school-based management? A case study of the literature-A call for research. In W. Clune & J. Witte (Eds.), Choice and control in American education, Volume 2: The practice of choice, decentralization and school restructuring (pp. 289-342). London, UK: The Falmer Press.
40. March, J. G. (1994). A primer on decision making. New York: Free Press.
41. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1979). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
42. McLaughlin, M. W. (1991). The Rand Change Agent Study: Ten years later. In A. R. Odden (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp. 143-155). Albany: State University of New York Press.
43. Miner, A. S., Bassoff, P., & Moorman, C. (2001). Organizational improvisation and learning: A field study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 304-337.
44. Oakland Unified School District. (2000). New small autonomous schools district policy. Oakland, CA: Author.
45. Oakland Unified School District. (2007). Expect success: Making education work for every Oakland student. Oakland, CA: Author.
46. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16, 145-179.
47. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
48. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York: Harper & Row.
49. Pittman, R. B., & Haughwout, P. (1987). Influence of high school size on dropout rate. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(4), 337-343.
50. Raywid, M. A. (2002). The policy environments of small schools and schools-withinschools. Educational Leadership, 59(5), 47-51.
51. Raywid, M. A., Schmerler, G., Phillips, S. E., & Smith, G. A. (2003). Not so easy going: The policy environments of small urban schools and schools-within-schools. Charleston, SC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.
52. Rhodes, D., Smerdon, B. A., Burt, W., Evan, A., Martinez, B., & Means, B. (2005). Getting to results: Student outcomes in new and redesigned high schools. Washington, DC: SRI.
53. Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1990). Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. Journal of Politics, 52(2), 510-529.
54. Skowronek, S. (1982). Building a new American state. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
55. Spillane, J. P. (1996). School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10(1), 63-87.
56. Sporte, S., Correa, M., Kahne, J., & Easton, J. Q. (2003). Chicago High School Redesign Initiative: A snapshot of the first year of implementation. Chicago: Consortium for Chicago School Reform.
57. Steyaert, C., Bouwen, R., & Looy, B. V. (1996). Conversational construction of new meaning configurations in organizational innovation: A generative approach. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 67-89.
58. Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590-607.
59. Van de Ven, A. H., & Polley, D. (1992). Learning while innovating. Organization Science, 3(1), 92-116.
60. Vaughn, D. (1996). The Challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
61. Walker, E. M. (2002). The politics of school-based management: Understanding the process of devolving authority in urban school districts [Electronic Version]. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10. Retrieved August 15, 2002 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n33.html
62. Wallach, C. A., & Gallucci, C. (2004). Elevating the conversation: Building professional community in small high schools. Seattle, WA: Small Schools Project.
63. Wallach, C. A., & Lear, R. (2003). An early report on comprehensive high school conversions. Seattle, WA: Small Schools Project.
64. Weiss, C. H. (1979). Bureaucratic maladies and remedies. American Behavioral Scientist, 22(5), 477-482.
65. West, M. A., & Altink, W. M. M. (1996). Innovation at work: Individual, group, organizational, and socio-historical perspectives. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 3-11.
66. Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.
67. Yates, D. (1978). Decentralization: Innovation and implementation in New York City. In R. R. Nelson & D. Yates (Eds.), Innovation and implementation in public organizations (pp. 157-174). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.